Skip to main content

About your Search

Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9 (some duplicates have been removed)
graduated from stanford law school, most firms would not hire her because of her gender but she was not deterred. for 25 years she was the swing vote on the can court on issues ranging from affirmative action to abortion to campaign finance. she left her post as associate justice in 2006. she's written a new book about the history of the supreme court. it is called out of order. i'm pleased to have justice sandra day o'connor back at this table. welcome. >> thank you, it's good to be here. >> rose: business first. >> all right. >> rose: business first. you gave me this. >> i did. >> rose: when i saw you a couple days ago. >> i did. >> rose: and you're not getting it back. >> no, i didn't expect to. >> rose: but i have this one which has my name on it. so i'm giving it -- >> is that right. >> rose: that's exactly right. >> but this is weathered and has a name. >> rose: that's why i wants to you have it. >> and gold on it. >> rose: that's another reason i want you to have it. >> all right. i'm arneed indeed. thank you. >> rose: everybody needs a constitution. >> yes, they
think. one could make that argument. there was a landmarks law on the books but one of the things i i discovered doing this book which i didn't know, when the judge ruled against the city in the landmarks preservation suit, the city was probably not going to appeal the decision. it was in the middle of the fiscal crisis. the city was worried it would be meld liable have to pay tens of medicine of dollars in damages. it wasn't until jackie onassis, ed koch, philip johnston, galvanized a movement saying we can't afford to lose this thing anymore that the momentum began that carried the case all the way up to the supreme court and established landmarks preservation. >> a consortium of organizations got together, including the municipal art society, and they said we have to make our stand here. the feeling was at the time, actually, grand central was a good building to make your stand on. if this idea of landmarks if preservation was going to go to the supreme court, better it be grand central than some tiny little place somewhere. so they justed to make this the big push. >> rose: so, pe
be productive you can compete and you can pay a good page. that is the iron law of the marketplace. what's happened is that the american environment, business environment, has eroded to the point where i think we are losing some of that competitiveness. that has led to the consequences we talked about earlier. >> rose: so you've got an eight-point plan here to restore american competitiveness. item one: ease is immigration of highly skilled individuals starting with international graduates of american universities. you're not the first person to talk about this. >> this is -- again, every one of these eight points, charlie, are pretty much agreed to by almost everybody. >> rose: in fact, you said an interesting thing. some people look at this and say "we've heard that before" you say that's a compliment. >> that's a compliment. absolutely. that means that we have wide agreement among lots of different people on the left and on the right and in the academic community about doing these things. and our point is, okay, we've got to do them! >> rose: right. >> because if we don't do them -- t
are consistent with all of the laws, all of the rules, wherever we are operating anywhere in the world. >> as you know steve-- wrote a book about exxon. did you read it? >> i have not. >> why not. >> well, i have a limited discretionary amount of time to read. >> what is it about exxon, the company that you worked for all your life, the company as steve called it is a very good --. >> i have read some reviews of the book. and in all honesty i have taken the time to read it because when i do read it i tend to read things that are more useful to my day-to-day decision-making and inform me or to just get a little bit of enjoyment from reading. >> rose: you think you might not have enjoyed this. >> i am sure i will get around to it. >> rose: it was about the power of exxon. it was almost like a state into itself, that is the central argument. >> uh-huh. >> rose: that he makes. and that it's almost has a mind-set that is unique because of its power. >> i have heard others make the comment to me that there is an illusion to, or a reference to exxonmobil having its own state department. >> yes, that's r
about in courts of law and in society. and let me try to explain what i mean by that. i will just give you one example of a finding from neuroscience. we're beginning to understand how the brain trades off the speed of a decision against the accuracy. so for example, eric and i might be observing the same fact but we might reach different decisions because i might be pretty quick. and eric might be slower and more deliberative. eric might make the better decision. i think that is probably correct. >> go on. >> the idea is that we're understanding the speed accuracy trade-off as a level of neuromechanism, okay. but it's bearing on what makes one decision maker different than other. one may be more impulsive. or more methodical, or perhaps paralyzed by indecisiveness. and it's at the level that this is at the level of neuromechanism that we can begin to get a handle on that. now what does that mean? it doesn't mean that-- that we can say with the neurons what someone is going to doment it doesn't mean that we can say, using neurophysiology whether someone has lied or told the truth. we c
Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9 (some duplicates have been removed)